Towards Non-Adversarial Algorithmic Recourse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.10330v1
• Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:18:21 GMT
• Title: Towards Non-Adversarial Algorithmic Recourse
• Authors: Tobias Leemann, Martin Pawelczyk, Bardh Prenkaj, Gjergji Kasneci,
• Abstract summary: It has been argued that adversarial examples, as opposed to counterfactual explanations, have a unique characteristic in that they lead to a misclassification compared to the ground truth. We introduce non-adversarial algorithmic recourse and outline why in high-stakes situations, it is imperative to obtain counterfactual explanations that do not exhibit adversarial characteristics.
• Score: 20.819764720587646
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The streams of research on adversarial examples and counterfactual explanations have largely been growing independently. This has led to several recent works trying to elucidate their similarities and differences. Most prominently, it has been argued that adversarial examples, as opposed to counterfactual explanations, have a unique characteristic in that they lead to a misclassification compared to the ground truth. However, the computational goals and methodologies employed in existing counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods often lack alignment with this requirement. Using formal definitions of adversarial examples and counterfactual explanations, we introduce non-adversarial algorithmic recourse and outline why in high-stakes situations, it is imperative to obtain counterfactual explanations that do not exhibit adversarial characteristics. We subsequently investigate how different components in the objective functions, e.g., the machine learning model or cost function used to measure distance, determine whether the outcome can be considered an adversarial example or not. Our experiments on common datasets highlight that these design choices are often more critical in deciding whether recourse is non-adversarial than whether recourse or attack algorithms are used. Furthermore, we show that choosing a robust and accurate machine learning model results in less adversarial recourse desired in practice.

Related papers

• A Critical Assessment of Interpretable and Explainable Machine Learning for Intrusion Detection [0.0]
  We study the use of overly complex and opaque ML models, unaccounted data imbalances and correlated features, inconsistent influential features across different explanation methods, and the implausible utility of explanations. Specifically, we advise avoiding complex opaque models such as Deep Neural Networks and instead using interpretable ML models such as Decision Trees. We find that feature-based model explanations are most often inconsistent across different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T15:35:42Z)
• On the Effect of Adversarial Training Against Invariance-based Adversarial Examples [0.23624125155742057]
  This work addresses the impact of adversarial training with invariance-based adversarial examples on a convolutional neural network (CNN) We show that when adversarial training with invariance-based and perturbation-based adversarial examples is applied, it should be conducted simultaneously and not consecutively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T12:35:37Z)
• When and How to Fool Explainable Models (and Humans) with Adversarial Examples [1.439518478021091]
  We explore the possibilities and limits of adversarial attacks for explainable machine learning models. First, we extend the notion of adversarial examples to fit in explainable machine learning scenarios. Next, we propose a comprehensive framework to study whether adversarial examples can be generated for explainable models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T11:20:55Z)
• On the Connections between Counterfactual Explanations and Adversarial Examples [14.494463243702908]
  We make one of the first attempts at formalizing the connections between counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples. Our analysis demonstrates that several popular counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods are equivalent. We empirically validate our theoretical findings using extensive experimentation with synthetic and real world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-18T08:22:24Z)
• Investigating the Role of Negatives in Contrastive Representation Learning [59.30700308648194]
  Noise contrastive learning is a popular technique for unsupervised representation learning. We focus on disambiguating the role of one of these parameters: the number of negative examples. We find that the results broadly agree with our theory, while our vision experiments are murkier with performance sometimes even being insensitive to the number of negatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-18T06:44:16Z)
• Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability [77.92370750072831]
  We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models. Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space. Our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T00:36:45Z)
• Toward Scalable and Unified Example-based Explanation and Outlier Detection [128.23117182137418]
  We argue for a broader adoption of prototype-based student networks capable of providing an example-based explanation for their prediction. We show that our prototype-based networks beyond similarity kernels deliver meaningful explanations and promising outlier detection results without compromising classification accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-11T05:58:17Z)
• Learning explanations that are hard to vary [75.30552491694066]
  We show that averaging across examples can favor memorization and patchwork' solutions that sew together different strategies. We then propose and experimentally validate a simple alternative algorithm based on a logical AND.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-01T10:17:48Z)
• Toward Machine-Guided, Human-Initiated Explanatory Interactive Learning [9.887110107270196]
  Recent work has demonstrated the promise of combining local explanations with active learning for understanding and supervising black-box models. Here we show that, under specific conditions, these algorithms may misrepresent the quality of the model being learned. We address this narrative bias by introducing explanatory guided learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-20T11:51:31Z)
• Evaluations and Methods for Explanation through Robustness Analysis [117.7235152610957]
  We establish a novel set of evaluation criteria for such feature based explanations by analysis. We obtain new explanations that are loosely necessary and sufficient for a prediction. We extend the explanation to extract the set of features that would move the current prediction to a target class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-31T05:52:05Z)
• Learning What Makes a Difference from Counterfactual Examples and Gradient Supervision [57.14468881854616]
  We propose an auxiliary training objective that improves the generalization capabilities of neural networks. We use pairs of minimally-different examples with different labels, a.k.a counterfactual or contrasting examples, which provide a signal indicative of the underlying causal structure of the task. Models trained with this technique demonstrate improved performance on out-of-distribution test sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T02:47:49Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.